4.5 Article

Clinical Risk Factors and Prognostic Impact of Osteoporosis in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 84, Issue 12, Pages 2224-+

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0593

Keywords

Direct oral anticoagulant; Heart failure; Loop diuretics; Osteoporosis; Warfarin

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI, Tokyo, Japan [JP18K17677]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The clinical significance of osteoporosis in chronic heart failure (CHF) remains unclear. Methods and Results: A total of 303 CHF patients (75 years, [interquartile range (IQR) 66-82 years]; 41% female) were retrospectively examined. Bone mineral densities (BMDs) at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total femur were measured by using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), and osteoporosis was diagnosed when the BMD at any of the 3 sites was <70% of the Young Adult Mean percentage (%YAM). The prevalence of osteoporosis in CHF patients was 40%. Patients with osteoporosis were older (79 [IQR, 74-86] vs. 72 [IQR, 62-80] years), included a large percentage of females, had slower gait speed and had a lower body mass index. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that sex, BMI, gait speed, loop diuretics use and no use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were independently associated with osteoporosis. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the rate of death and heart failure hospitalization was higher in patients with osteoporotic BMD at 2 or 3 sites than in patients without osteoporosis (hazard ratio 3.45, P<0.01). In multivariate Cox regression analyses, osteoporotic BMD at 2 or 3 sites was an independent predictor of adverse events after adjustment for prognostic markers. Conclusions: Loop diuretics use and no DOACs use are independently associated with osteoporosis in CHF patients. Osteoporosis is a novel predictor of worse outcome in patients with CHF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available